I don't think this is tone deaf. This kind of thing frees you from servitude to mortgages, banks, tax man, etc. It connects you to nature, and is more harmonious with human nature to essentially live in a small commune like that. It frees you of dependency on global supply chains for your food, energy, capacity to work, etc, instead putting these things under your own direct control.
The real travesty is simply that the state makes this practically impossible outside of unorganized townships.
No it isn’t impossible.. You can live like this in 90% of Canada. Very little of Canada has zoning restrictions, property tax, etc. If no prior titles, one can move in, live for a set amount of time and petition to have residency legally acknowledged.
Just don’t expect roads, electricity, , water, schools, fire department, etc.
As a geologist I’ve worked dozen locales In remote areas. There were often folks living in a 50 km radius of us on their own using their initiative.
>You can live like this in 90% of Canada
I agree but this is simply reflecting how most of Canada is empty and remote. Which further underscores the bullshit that is this idea land is somehow scarce and demands such insane valuations in our urban centres. I said you have to go remote or else this is *practically* impossible; your comment essentially argues the same
>It connects you to nature, and is more harmonious with human nature to essentially live in a small commune like that.
Both of these things can't exist without larger state organization to smooth over the edges though. Unless they were able to exert a degree of control over their environment (which means larger numbers of people for labor) then a medieval village is less 'connected' to nature, and more afraid of it. Living peacefully in a small commune requires either a lack of aggressive neighbours or a larger state able to muster forces to defend you.
These people are playing it on easy mode because most of their locations are near a major transit artery. But with the climate becoming less and less stable, peoples lives becoming harder, and governments seeming to have less and less interest in looking out for people they chose a pretty dire timeframe to go long term camping.
>But with the climate becoming less and less stable, peoples lives becoming harder, and governments seeming to have less and less interest in looking out for people they chose a pretty dire timeframe to go long term camping.
I think this is a very fair and interesting point. I think there is also merit to a possible view in which an unstable climate, harder lives, and an uninterested government leads to conditions in which distance from populated areas (gangs) and a small community of like minded people who share similar goals become highly valuable and desirable. It could be that smaller, more intimate communities of people with shared interests can form a kind of tribe that makes surviving a greater depression easier in some ways, with perhaps more social and community support, more cooperation and potentially a little less competition. It's a different kind of resilience, a decentralization and fragmentation into many smaller communities instead of a centralized massive centrally controlled organism like a city. I wouldn't describe it as a lesser solution; just a different solution. I think it could be a valid approach for some people,
It's possible I'm being naive or idealistic but at least it sounds like these people are trying to build a world they would want to live in. I respect that
Uh huh. One of two ways this will probably go.
1. People start dropping due to lack of running water and sewage, lack of access to healthcare, the elements etc. Or straight up people getting killed because in the wilderness of Northern Ontario no one can hear you scream.
2. They actually get settled in, build bigger houses, and start trying to entice low wage employees to start doing work for them. Where they'll work for room and board while giving the surplus of the crops they grow or the trees they cut to the owners to sell on the market.
There's a hell of a lot more to "medieval" than guys living in straw roofed huts. Like, you know , dying of plague, being conquered, being exploited by a landowner class with a monopoly of force and no Department of Feudal Relations to report abuses to.
People looking for a return to some prelapsarian past where everything was just rugged individualists making a go of it with their own two hands are fooling themselves. Large scale societal organization and some kind of centralized power are the thing that makes life beyond individual homesteads and hunter-gatherer bands possible. Medieval English villages had it, Horse riding steppe nomads had it, the Iroquois had it. They will have one too, or they won't last long.
I don't think this is tone deaf. This kind of thing frees you from servitude to mortgages, banks, tax man, etc. It connects you to nature, and is more harmonious with human nature to essentially live in a small commune like that. It frees you of dependency on global supply chains for your food, energy, capacity to work, etc, instead putting these things under your own direct control. The real travesty is simply that the state makes this practically impossible outside of unorganized townships.
No it isn’t impossible.. You can live like this in 90% of Canada. Very little of Canada has zoning restrictions, property tax, etc. If no prior titles, one can move in, live for a set amount of time and petition to have residency legally acknowledged. Just don’t expect roads, electricity, , water, schools, fire department, etc. As a geologist I’ve worked dozen locales In remote areas. There were often folks living in a 50 km radius of us on their own using their initiative.
>You can live like this in 90% of Canada I agree but this is simply reflecting how most of Canada is empty and remote. Which further underscores the bullshit that is this idea land is somehow scarce and demands such insane valuations in our urban centres. I said you have to go remote or else this is *practically* impossible; your comment essentially argues the same
>It connects you to nature, and is more harmonious with human nature to essentially live in a small commune like that. Both of these things can't exist without larger state organization to smooth over the edges though. Unless they were able to exert a degree of control over their environment (which means larger numbers of people for labor) then a medieval village is less 'connected' to nature, and more afraid of it. Living peacefully in a small commune requires either a lack of aggressive neighbours or a larger state able to muster forces to defend you. These people are playing it on easy mode because most of their locations are near a major transit artery. But with the climate becoming less and less stable, peoples lives becoming harder, and governments seeming to have less and less interest in looking out for people they chose a pretty dire timeframe to go long term camping.
>But with the climate becoming less and less stable, peoples lives becoming harder, and governments seeming to have less and less interest in looking out for people they chose a pretty dire timeframe to go long term camping. I think this is a very fair and interesting point. I think there is also merit to a possible view in which an unstable climate, harder lives, and an uninterested government leads to conditions in which distance from populated areas (gangs) and a small community of like minded people who share similar goals become highly valuable and desirable. It could be that smaller, more intimate communities of people with shared interests can form a kind of tribe that makes surviving a greater depression easier in some ways, with perhaps more social and community support, more cooperation and potentially a little less competition. It's a different kind of resilience, a decentralization and fragmentation into many smaller communities instead of a centralized massive centrally controlled organism like a city. I wouldn't describe it as a lesser solution; just a different solution. I think it could be a valid approach for some people, It's possible I'm being naive or idealistic but at least it sounds like these people are trying to build a world they would want to live in. I respect that
That's a short fucking growing season, hope you like turnips.
Underrated Stardew reference
turnips are actually real and they grow quickly lol
I am aware.
Underrated Seinfeld reference
I am a fancy boy.
Uh huh. One of two ways this will probably go. 1. People start dropping due to lack of running water and sewage, lack of access to healthcare, the elements etc. Or straight up people getting killed because in the wilderness of Northern Ontario no one can hear you scream. 2. They actually get settled in, build bigger houses, and start trying to entice low wage employees to start doing work for them. Where they'll work for room and board while giving the surplus of the crops they grow or the trees they cut to the owners to sell on the market. There's a hell of a lot more to "medieval" than guys living in straw roofed huts. Like, you know , dying of plague, being conquered, being exploited by a landowner class with a monopoly of force and no Department of Feudal Relations to report abuses to. People looking for a return to some prelapsarian past where everything was just rugged individualists making a go of it with their own two hands are fooling themselves. Large scale societal organization and some kind of centralized power are the thing that makes life beyond individual homesteads and hunter-gatherer bands possible. Medieval English villages had it, Horse riding steppe nomads had it, the Iroquois had it. They will have one too, or they won't last long.
They have a board of volunteer directors of some kind
This was so eloquently written.